The main point of this essay is that ethnography is not a linear approach where Field Research leads to Fieldnotes which lead to Ethnography. Instead, the fieldnote includes both experience ("field research") and interpretation ("ethnography"). After all, the fieldnote projects forward: what a fieldworker records and how he/she includes it is related to what he/she intends to study. Early fieldnotes can redirect research as the researcher finds out more about his/her subjects. There are also interactions between even the act of taking fieldnotes and the group being studied: does holding a notebook and pen (or in my case, a laptop) influence how the subjects interact with each other? Additionally, though the act of writing something down changes the situation--writing becomes part of the experience--it also helps one interpret and understand the situation. Finally, rereading fieldnotes inevitably helps one re-experience and re-evaluate the situations recording, affording new interpretations and insights. Overall, Barz writes that fieldnotes are an indispensible part of the ethnographic process that interacts with both the experience itself and the ethnography about it.
Discussion Question: On page 206, Barz writes that "Notes written in the field affect perception, memory, and interpretation." Because of this bias, should we wait to record our experiences and thoughts until after the event we are observing ends? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing so?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment